Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1944 MONARCHY IN ITALY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 5 February 1944, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1944 MONARCHY IN ITALY

REPORTS of the impending abdication of King Victor Emmanuel 111 of Italy must be accepted with caution, but they are so persistent that they cannot be dismissed as idle gossip. Only a few days ago a congress of Italian political parties connected with the Liberation Movement, under the leadership of the celebrated historian, Dr. Benedetto Croce, unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the King to resign as a necessary preliminary to the reconstruction of Italy; and a week or so earlier it was suggested, on apparently good authority, that the King was only waiting for the recapture of Rome to perform an act of sacrifice which could most fittingly be carried out in the city where he was crowned.

Victor Emmanuel, who succeeded his father Umberto on the latter’s assassination in 1900, is the doyen of European monarchs. He is pleasant and agreeable in conversation, simple in his tastes, and strict in his private life. His chief interest has- always been numismatics, and his collection of coins, which was recently appropriated by the Germans, is one of the best in the world. He has no personal ambition, beyond the maintenance of his dynasty,-' and not much political talent. Despite his hooked nose and bristling white moustache, he is an insignificant little man, both in stature and in personality, and for the last twenty years he has been dominated by the egocentric Mussolini. He must bear some share of the responsibility for establishing Fascism, for it was at his invitation that the founder and prophet of that violent creed made his "march on Rome.” It may be that the complaisant King, once he was firmly bound to Mussolini’s chariot, sorely regretted his decision; but he never till a few months ago dissociated himself from its pernicious workings, and he accepted his share of plunder and glory without protest. He was not actively responsible for its excesses, in the sense that Mussolini, Ciano and others were; but he may fairly be regarded as a collaborator, and it is no injustice to expect him to share the reverses as

well as the triumphs of the system. If Victor Emmanuel should find it expedient to surrender his throne as soon as the Italian political situation is stabilised, it is natural to ask who will be his successor, or what form of government will take his place. He may, of course, merely give way to his son, as discredited monarchs often do; on the other hand the monarchical system may disappear with him, and a republic be proclaimed. The stability of the Italian monarchy is very interestingly discussed in an article written for “The Fortnightly” by Umberto Calosso some time before the collapse of the Mussolini regime. Signor Calosso, without proclaiming himself a republican, develops the interesting theory that the monarchical system is not very deeply rooted in Italy, and suggests that the House of Savoy might not survive a serious

The learned author has no difficulty in finding evidence in both ancient and modern Italian history to support his view. Not only the Italian kingship, but Italy as a unified state, are plants of very recent growth. Throughout the Middle Ages, and well into modern times, Italy was, in the words of Metternich, “merely a geographical expression.” Despite the consciousness of common speech and common culture, the Italian people, had never, except for Napoleon’s brief experiment, been united under on* government. In the early nineteenth century eight different governments, most of them reactionary and tied to foreign interests, ruled the country. Union came rather suddenly, chiefly as a result of Garibaldi’s whirlwind campaign in 1861, but even then it was not complete, for Venice did not join till 186 G or Rome till 1870. The impetus behind the movement was mainly republican. Mazzini, whose fervid speeches first inspired the Italians with a national consciousness, was a convinced republican, and withdrew into private life rather than serve a monarchy; Garibaldi, though he worked with the House of Savoy, would have preferred a republic; more than one Prime Minister of United Italy professed similar views. The monarchical system was adopted partly for internal convenience, partly to save trouble with the rest of Europe; and the House of Savoy, to whom the crown was entrusted, was a dynasty of no great historical or political importance. The Italian monarchy therefore had no such long tradition behind it as the monarchies of England, Austria, Spain and Russia; and it is worth noting that only one of these well-established dynasties survived the stresses of the Great War.

Signor Calosso presents such a strong case that his main thesis, the insecure hold of the monarchy in Italy, may be regarded as proved. He is careful to point out, however, that this does not necessarily mean the early establishment of republicanism. In his opinion people in Italy to-day are not much interested in the respective merits of these two forms of government. The distinction strikes the younger generation as academic; other and far more urgent problems stir their minds, and instead of loo'king back to pre-Fascist times, they look beyond Fascism to the future. So if Victor Emmanuel retires, the monarchy may still continue; but if it does, it will not be because it is doing any real good in Italy, but because it is doing no particular harm.